Hi! I create read-only "thin client images" and diskless boot setups quite frequently. I have been studying UnionFS quite closely myself. I had a choice between UnionFS, UnionFSFuse and FunionFS. I chose to try UnionFS first. Though it is reported to be broken and badly implemented, among the three implementations this is the one with the maximum number of users. I am happy to say that after a month of testing, UnionFS works perfectly and hasn't given a squeak. I used kernel 2.6.18 on a Fedora Core 6 system. Maybe it's time to give it another look. It is such a welcome break from watching all those mount/umount errors while bootup/shutdown. Cheers! Saurabh On 17/01/07, Jeffrey Law <law@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the significant problems we've got with stateless is our use of bind mounts to made some files writable. While it does make the key files writable, it fails miserably when we need to do things like atomic updates or deal with historical nonsense like lock files in /etc. Having sent out patches to the maintainers of every utility which wanted to muck around with /etc/mtab~ as a lock file and watching the underwhelming response I have a hard time believing that we're going to be able to fix all the similar problems that already exist. I can only conclude that to make readonly-root work that we're going to have to have a functional union-fs. About a a year ago we decided that the in-kernel unionfs was a total disaster and unusable. However, since that time FUSE seems to have matured significantly and there are two projects which provide a union-fs on top of FUSE (UnionFSFuse and FunionFS). Does anyone have experience with the overall stability of FUSE and either of the union-fs projects layered on top of it? Jeff _______________________________________________ Stateless-list mailing list Stateless-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/stateless-list
-- http://saurabh.org.in